Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

New submitter alysion writes "Per research published in the online journal PLOS One, psychologists Christine Ma-Kellams of Harvard University and Jim Blascovich of the University of California, Santa Barbara report, 'Thinking about science leads individuals to endorse more stringent moral norms.' In one of the four supporting experiments, undergraduates considered an account of a date rape and were asked to judge behavior on a scale of 1 to 100. Science types, perhaps not surprisingly, proved to have a better grasp of reality, including the moral kind."

The article's title raises the issue of ethics, but the summary talks about moral norms, these are not the same thing. Ethics and morals, while somewhat related, deal with different view points as they relate to behaviour. If we're going to be scientific about judging someone's actions we first have to make sure everyone agrees on the definitions of ethical and moral, something society in general has trouble doing.

Really? Well I don't believe so, it just seems that a lot of people have found that it's easier to toss morals and ethics out the window when it suits their agenda. It's easy to go from "well I shouldn't, because it's wrong" to "I'm going to because I know I'm right away..." We see it with academics all the time, we see it in politics, and we see it in society in general. And people do it because it's, expedient, low risk, and no one is really going to call them out on it.

Ethics and morals, while somewhat related, deal with different view points as they relate to behaviour. If we're going to be scientific about judging someone's actions we first have to make sure everyone agrees on the definitions of ethical and moral, something society in general has trouble doing.

Hmmm.... I seem to feel an element that's beyond the requirement of an accepted and strict formal-logic definition; and it's also a bit beyond the line of the explanation in TFA:

“We contend there is a lay image or notion of ‘science’ that is associated with concepts of rationality, impartiality, fairness, technological progress,” they write. “The notion of science contains in it the broader moral vision of a society in which rationality is used for the mutual benefit of all.”

Science is a lot about cause-effect rationing and generalization. Even without ethical/moral judgement involved (or strict definition of terms), such a type of thinking have higher chances to increase the sense of responsibility for one's action; even if only by "How do you like the effects of this action?" (cause-effect) and "What

I think the correlation/causation problem is valid, however the article did mention some other studies, one of which seemed to indicate that the mere exposure to science terms just before taking the survey caused people to view the date-rape in a more negative manner. This would seem to be pretty strong evidence for a causal connection.

I would say that an ability to think about and analyze something goes along with one's strength in scientific disciplines, but the self-control required to act on what we know is right? That's a different story. How many people cheat on their partners? (Too many.) How many of them could give a good analysis and explanation of why that's wrong? (Uh, probably 100%.)

A recent scientific study just came out saying that scientists are better endowed and make better lovers then non-scientists.

There, that should put things in our favor when we go out to the nightclubs.

Of course, we all know, for the human male there is only so much they can be endowed with. You have to choose which head gets endowed, so to speak. It is by far the rarest of exception to be endowed both in reasoning ability and sexual prowness. And, any males that disagree are just showing they weren't as endowed in reasoning ability as they thought.

It is very much possible the more ethical types gravitate towards science rather than scientific literacy made them more ethical. Most likely a whole combination of behaviors and attitudes occur together, being ethical, liking science, etc are all possibly triggered by a deeper primary cause. All these attitudes could be just the external symptoms.

There is a lot wrong with the study. To determine scientific attitudes, they asked, “How much do you believe in science?' on a one-to-seven scale." If someone asked me how much I 'believe' in science, my responses would range from glaring at them to outright verbal hostility. I don't 'believe' in science, I examine the evidence. I trust scientists in some things. I don't trust the scientists who did this study.

Looking at this paper [plosone.org], it's not clear that they got their statistics right. They used a point-biserial correlation. What is the point of asking people to rate their belief on a scale of 1-7 if you're just going to coerce it into a binary value? The paper would have been MUCH better if they'd made a graph of their data points, as it is now, there is serious doubt that their data shows what they think it did.

A possible red flag: they didn't find any correlation at all between gender and approval of date rape. Do women really approve of date rape at the same level as men? I don't know, but it seems strange to me.

Buddy, if you are going to use anecdotal evidence in an argument, you are probably not best qualified to find fault with that study. Not saying that study is good, just saying, you probably don't have the standing to make that accusation.

(I have to agree with some others here though that "more stringent" ethics are in the eye of the beholder. At least the study shows that some people are thinking about it, rather than getting all their ethics once a week from some guy who dresses funny.)

(I have to agree with some others here though that "more stringent" ethics are in the eye of the beholder. At least the study shows that some people are thinking about it, rather than getting all their ethics once a week from some guy who dresses funny.)

Critical thinking has nothing to do with ethics. Ethics deals with how well one follows a moral code. There are ethical critical thinkers and unethical critical thinkers. There are ethical simpletons and unethical simpletons. It has no bearing on ones intelligence, just one's morals and a willingness to follow them.

The Nazis had plenty of good German engineers, but their overall culture wasn't "highly scientific and cutting edge." Analyzing, for example, Nazi attempts at building an atomic bomb, one finds that they had severe impediments due to a culture that elevated respect for authority above scientific inquiry. If the scientists at the top of the organization chart in an area of study were incompetent, no one would dare challenge them or independently work on more fruitful avenues. Political/ideological infighting

It seems like we can only conclude that scientific literacy helps one to more consistently categorize ethical/unethical behavior. Whether actions follow, especially in times of desperation where ethics are most needed and least cared for, is an entirely different matter altogether. Knowing right is not the same as doing right.

Maybe those scientifically literate folks should take a philosophy course or two. In doing so, they might find that morality deals with things like right and wrong and ethics with how well you follow a moral code.

A moral person has some sort of code to help them do the right thing. An ethical person follows their moral code. Now we may argue over the merits of their moral code, but that does not change whether or not they are ethical. Likewise, we cannot argue over how ethical somebody's actions are withou

How is anything you just wrote relevant to the study presented (bunk as it may be)?

The study said that scientific literacy makes one more ethical. That would mean more likely to follow their moral code. And then they give examples about being able to point out that date rape is wrong. However, recognizing something is a violation of a moral code and not actually violating the moral code are two separate things. Ironically, if one did not know that date rape is wrong, then committing it would not be unethical.

I guess the point I was making is that for people of such high academic standards

"Historically, for better or worse, religion defined morals in western society."

This is a popular assertion, but I don't believe it. Religion has generally changed to echo what the people of an era considered to be moral, including today. As far as western morality is concerned, the commandments and leviticus are all based on older laws. Even then, things like the adultery commandment are interpreted very differently now than they were in the past.

"Historically, for better or worse, religion defined morals in western society."

This is a popular assertion, but I don't believe it. Religion has generally changed to echo what the people of an era considered to be moral, including today. As far as western morality is concerned, the commandments and leviticus are all based on older laws. Even then, things like the adultery commandment are interpreted very differently now than they were in the past.

You are free to believe what you want, but that doesn't make it correct. We could put your hypothesis to a test, though and wait and see if the various world religions change to mimic western morality. So far it doesn't appear to be happening.

With regards to the commandments and leviticus and the rest. Well, once the Holy Roman Empire ruled Europe, it is pretty hard to say it was it was wrong to kill because some ancient code said it was instead of the Empire saying that God said it was. From that point, in

Sounds like it might be more accurate to say that science makes people more judgemental and close-minded. "more likely to condemn"

I do not know why and how anyone would spin this as "more ethical" or a good thing, but is is pretty obvious that this shows that science in this instance has blinded these people to the ambiguity and greyness of the real world and morality.

...it makes you better able to make reality-informed decisions based on whatever ethical norms you subscribe to: science is descriptive, ethics are prescriptive. If you're a completely amoral sociopath bent on making people miserable, scientific literacy will enable you to achieve those ends. If you're a consummate altruist and want to improve the lives of those around you, scientific literacy will also enable you to achieve those ends.

Scientific minded people are accustomed to working with clear rules, and declaring that "2+2=5" is WRONG. Artsy types, in contrast, say "personally I prefer not to use orange with blue, but of course it's all a matter of opinion."

In science, the laws of physics are inviolate. Try to break them, you are WRONG, and that's not an opinion. Morality is the same. At work, I regularly encounter non-science types who can't understand that the laws of computer science can't be changed based on their preference

Newton's DESCRIPTION of the laws of physics were approximate. The laws themselves are unchanging, inviolate. He just didn't describe them with the level of precision that Einstein later described them. Physics didn't change, our knowledge of it did.

Similarly, "honesty is the best policy" is an approximation. Like Newton's approximations, it's close enough to.work well for 99% of what we encounter in daily life. (Combined with the first and highext law, love.) A more precise description of exactly wha

Not that long ago, we used a the classical education system. This was based on the Trivium (Rhetoric, Basic Math, Language) followed later by the Quadrivium which was Philosophy, Astrology (Later Science replaced this), Art, and Music. The advanced education (Quadrivium) still included the Trivium with more advanced subjects. When we educated this way we not only learned science and math, but people learned ethics, morals, and more importantly how to think. The classical education system was disbanded back in the 1930/40s, when we moved to the Marxist industrial education system. This system is designed to train people to perform jobs, and not to think.

Ethics and looking out for the greater good of society is something requires reinforcement and training, just like mathematics. Problems and Solutions are not made by people that never consider the full implications of their actions. I have long been an advocate of disbanding the Marxist education system that has taken hold in the US and other parts of Europe. Germany adopted our education system in the 1970s, and it's had a horrible effect.

Unfortunately, a large percentage of the population is not aware of how bad our education system is. They believe it's normal not to memorize times tables, and not understand the math concept of multiplication. Many teachers don't want to teach what the Government forces them to teach. They realize it does not teach kids to think but to perform robotic tasks. Their hands are tied by the Government mandated system.

It was because of how poor our education system is, that my kid went to private school.

Are you kidding me? In virtually every field the Nazis were backwards and intentionally antagonistic to a proper implementation of the scientific method. They rejected Einstein's relativity as "Jewish physics" because of its philosophical implications and the religion of its early researchers. The NSDAP's stance on education was that no subject could be divorced from "racial" truths, hence you had physics replaced with "German physics", biology and anthropology replaced with "Rassenwissenschaft" (racial science), and even maths corrupted with racist, imperialist, overtones.

They were able to pull off some amazing short term work in applied physics and engineering, especially in aerospace and chemistry, but they were handicapped by a worldview that was absolutely hostile to empirical evidenced based research and education. If anything those advancements were in spite of the educational climate, and largely attributed to scientists who were trained in pre-Nazi institutions. If the Germans had won, the next generation of scientists and researchers would have been a dismal lot indeed; muddled, confused, indoctrinated, unable to think critically, and infused with a racist mentality that would poison and retard their ability to make meaningful advancements. After a few generations they'd have nothing but pseudoscientists and mystics.

And don't get me started on the Soviets. Lamarckism, in the form of Lysenkoism, was the official doctrine of the state well into the 20th century.

You are absolutely correct. Some might point out that pretty much all post WW2 rocketry, (both in the West and Soviet bloc) was based on German work, and indeed workers, but as you say, these technically-excellent scientists and engineers had extensive pre-nazi academic experience, and for the most part did not buy into their bullshit philosophy.

Whether or not they were morally right to work for such an appalling regime, including accepting the use of slave labour, is of course another question.

The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering known mainstays of Nazi Germany such as genocide, eugenics or racial superiority, nor, more debatably, to a discussion of other totalitarian regimes or ideologies, if that was the explicit topic of conversation, since a Nazi comparison in those circumstances may be appropriate, [...]

The meaning of their tests is simpler than that, actually. They used no controls. It would be just as valid to say "science makes people think in more absolute terms," which surprises no one, and fits the data perfectly well. Too bad that isn't headline-grabbing, or they might have conducted a responsible study. Whoever reviewed this thing should slap themselves; it's complete garbage.

Did you read the paper? It's not even clear what their data is. Given they had fewer than 100 data points, they could have just released it all. It would have been more interesting than their analysis, anyway.

>> And I'm still trying to figure out how the fuck magnets work!> Where did you get your fuck magnets from? I had no idea it was so high-tech!It is a sort of babe magnet, dont you see?

On a more serious note... Ethics and science have little to do with one and other.Einstein left was a terrible husband, left his first child (who some claim was mentally ill) and her mother to themselves. In his consecutive marriages he cheated as if the nuclear holocaust was due next day.Plenty of physicians conducte

And yet this science article says that it does. So are you saying that're not real scientists, or not talking about real ethics, or what? When the hypothesis is "being A is highly correlated with being B", simply stating "Ah, but here's an A that's not B, therefore WRONG" is not a valid argument. The entirety of your post is basically one large logical fallacy wrapped up in horrific acts to distract from the lack of substance, with a little bit of ad hominem on Angela Merkel to add topicality. What people think of her "moral codes" is completely irrelevant to both the issue at hand, and her actual ethical behavior. The fact that it's +4 Insightful is completely baffling.

In addition to the valid points of the other respondents noting that a few exceptions to the average do not disprove the average, do any of your examples actually show scientists being less ethically minded than their less-scientific colleagues? The truth is a *lot* of people are/were terrible husbands, racist fucks, and hypocritical greedy bastards. Proving that lots of scientists are/were terrible husbands, racist fucks, and hypocritical greedy bastards doesn't mean they don't measure up well compared to the extremely low moral standard set by the broader non-scientific population.

I think you're only disproving a straw-man version of the "theory" that does not follow (in any sense that a scientifically minded person would interpret) from the statement "scientific literacy makes people more ethical." Your "disproved" version of the statement appears to be "scientifically literate people are more ethical than non-scientifically literate people," which is not the same. A still "overly strong" interpretation of the statement is that scientific literacy would make any one person more ethical than if they weren't scientifically literate (but they might still be less ethical than someone else who started at a higher level). This interpretation of the statement requires different examples to disprove: you need to find a person with a measured level of "ethicality" before and after becoming scientifically literate, then show they were worse after. Of course, the "obvious" meaning implied by the statement is in some average sense, since only a dysfunctionally pedantic person would fail to supply that expected context.

Irrelevant, they're asking undergrads, not real scientists. For all we know, the academic hiring and grants game makes scientists much less ethical. Amongst undergrads, science majors appear more ethical though.

In my personal experience, there is a certain appreciation for ethics amongst academics that the tech work force exhibits less frequently. As an example, I said SendGrid legally sent email spam in the Adria Richards thread. Almost immediately several people defended wasting your customers time by

- You picked Einstein to disprove that 'the most unethical people have been highly educated". Doesn't work. Einstein was highly educated and, for the purpose of this discussion, I will assume that you and I consider him an example of an ethical person. The original argument was "The most unethical people have been highly educated". The converse of that argument is "some ethical people are not highly educated" and "some educated people are ethical" - which would appear to describe Einstein. So Einstein'

Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not kill "millions" of people. Hiroshima killed about 80,000 people on impact, and probably a few hundred thousand more afterward from reduced life-span due to radiation exposure. The population of the city was 340,000 - 350,000 at the time of bombing. Nagasaki was slightly less killed, and better stats on injured. Population 263,000.

Those are the only two uses of nuclear weapons for aggression in human history. The firebombing - with conventional warheads and napalm - of Tokyo ki

It should be noted that Truman wasn't even aware that the Manhattan Project existed until after he was sworn in as President after FDR's death (which shows just how secret FDR thought the Bomb needed to be - don't even tell the VP).

No. He developed the equation E=mc^2. He was also persuaded by Leó Szilárd to help write a letter to Roosevelt [wikipedia.org] that warned that the Nazi's could be close to developing the atomic bomb, and that the USA should invest money to develop their own, but he himself played no part in the actual development (because he was a pacifist). At the time of writing the letter, he thought he was doing something that would help to bring peace, because if the Nazi's had the bomb, the USA and it's allies would have n

He also helped develop a petition to the government begging not to use it. Growing up means recognizing that "good" people do "bad" things all the time, and vice-versa, or put another way, people who don't make mistakes have never learned anything new. I'm not religious but I think Jesus was onto something with the "throwing the first stone" thing.

cherry picking aka anecdotal evidence aka "any number of examples" do not prove any theory. On the other hand 1 example is enough to disprove such ridiculous claims:

Einstein

p.s. i can point an equally number of unethical people with really low education: Attila the hun anyone ? timur lang ?

Attila the Hun, by all accounts, was a very ethical person. He had a different moral code than what we have today, but evidently was very consistent in following it. That doesn't make him unethical. If he hadn't followed his moral code, then he would be unethical.

Even if true that does not make them scientists. For example Hitler wanted to be an arts student (but was rejected), Stalin studied at a theological school and seminary and, if we switch to financial ethics, Kenneth Lay (CEO of Enron) had a PhD in economics. So, based on a sample of these three I would argue that your hypothesis looks to be on shaky ground and, even if it is true in general, does not seem to contradict the claim that _scientists_ are more ethical.

Correlation or causation? Insofar as knowledge is power, being highly educated helps people to attain positions of greater power --- and hence greater potential for harm. Plenty of uneducated dumb hicks might be every bit as morally depraved as the famous highly-educated villains of history; they just never rose to a high enough position to cause harm beyond an occasional mugging or spiteful vandalism. Only the combination of ethical failings with massive power (achieved with the aid of education, or at lea

A refutation of your post seems unnecessary since you appear to be hard at work refuting yourself. On one hand you sweepingly dismissed as not truly moral those who do what is right out of fear of the sorts of spiritual repercussions that you don't believe in. And then on the other hand you said that there isn't any objective standard for morality or ethics, implying that your first point is wrong, since their idea of morality is just as good as yours. Lol!

I'm pretty sure we can say that morals aren't purely subjective. For example, practically everyone would agree that extreme torture to another human for 'just a laff' would be at least morally dubious.

And there we go into the realm of qualia [wikipedia.org], and possibly the supernatural. I can't prove it, and I hate to use the word "faith" (I'm not religious), but if there was ever use for such a word, that would fit the bill very well.

Kant showed why such things are objectively wrong almost 200 years ago. It's just that very few people have the patience to read the first and second critiques, the Groundwork and the Metaphysics of Morals, so most people are ignorant of this advancement in ethics.

In particular look at the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative in the Groundwork. A morally-correct maxim necessarily assumes a respect for other people's autonomy. Torturing someone for fun completely undermines any such respect.

One of the popular mistakes people make when quoting philosophy is to forget that any logical argument necessarily begins with assumptions. Kant showed why some things are universally wrong, given his assumptions. If you don't accept his assumptions, stated or otherwise, his argument is meaningless. The value of respect for autonomy, for example, is not some kind of physical law. It is itself a potentially relative moral value, one that may be considerably weaker in other cultures.

There ARE excellent arguments for why things like murder and torture are morally wrong, if you assume that survival is beneficial. Murder is something that most species have evolved to control, and it can be particularly damaging in species that depend on cooperation.

Not every logical argument begins with assumptions, so how could I forget something which I know to be false? Take an argument:1. If X then X.2. If X then X.Therefore, 3. If X then X.

This argument is sound and no assumption is made.

" If you don't accept his assumptions, stated or otherwise, his argument is meaningless. " Please, demonstrate this: Which assumptions, if I deny them, does his argument become meaningless? And in what way exactly is his argument meaningless if I deny these assumptions?

True, you have constructed a logical argument not relying on prior assumptions. The argument may even be *sound* within an *assumed* framework in which your predicates (If X then X) are true --- this is the first place you need assumptions, but you can often get away with such widely held assumptions to slip past all but the most pedantic logicians. The sticky point for making a "useful" argument, is that all your conclusions end up in the form "if X then X." You can never reach conclusions about external c

1. Deduction A implies that X is true.2. Deduction A is sound.3. If X, then torture is wrong.Therefore, 4. Torture is wrong.

There is no assumption X is true. QED: There is an absolute conclusion of "torture is wrong", while having a condition "if", and no assumption that X is true.

All you've managed here is moved the assumption from "X is true" to "A is true, A=>X". How the heck do you call this an argument without assumptions, when you're assuming "Deduction A is sound" (where did you get that from? How do you know it on pure logical grounds?), and also "A => X"? Example: A="The moon is made of cheese," X="The sky is falling". Would you say "The moon is made of cheese, this is true, and implies the sky is falling (which means torture is wrong)" and say that's a sound argument

I'm not assuming there is an X.I'm not assuming X doesn't change.I'm not sure what the question means. I'm not calling anything X and I don't claim that anything is called X, can be called X, or anything else about the topic of calling things X.

This is something we learn in the first weeks of calculus: "if X then X" does NOT assume that X exists. In the most retentive case it simply says "if X exists as an assumption, then X must be an assumption".

More frequently used in the context of mathematics is: "if X is a true assumption, then X is a true assumption", which is just a relative expression and doesn't even say if X is possible.Now the mutable part is something completely different. Then I must say "if X between times t0 and t1, then X between

I'm pretty sure we can say that morals aren't purely subjective. For example, practically everyone would agree that extreme torture to another human for 'just a laff' would be at least morally dubious.

The moment you add a qualifier such as "just a laff" (sic), you have shown that morals are not objective. If they were, there would not be a need for a qualifier.

If morals are objective, they are black and white, yes or no. It is wrong to murder somebody is a moral statement. Is it possible to that it would ever not be wrong to murder somebody (murder is different than killing)? However, most things are not black and white. As soon as you have to qualify, you have start down a path of relativism or subject

We could be arguing over semantics here. It doesn't have to be "black or white" to be objective. You can have an intrinsic value on a sliding scale from bad to good, with various shades of grey in between as you pointed out. Also you can have a very contrasted balance where a very good thing can balance out a very bad thing (e.g.: firefighter sacrificing their life to save two, or the way cars usefulness balance out the number of deaths they cause on our roads). This is where most people tend to get very co

We could be arguing over semantics here. It doesn't have to be "black or white" to be objective. You can have an intrinsic value on a sliding scale from bad to good, with various shades of grey in between as you pointed out. Also you can have a very contrasted balance where a very good thing can balance out a very bad thing (e.g.: firefighter sacrificing their life to save two, or the way cars usefulness balance out the number of deaths they cause on our roads). This is where most people tend to get very confused and where you have extremists on both sides of the middle.

In summary, when I say 'objective', I don't mean it is "always wrong to....abc" or "always right to.... xyz" - I mean that there's a unknown value or desirability of outcome which is hard or impossible to find out, but nevertheless exists.

Intrinsic is not the same as objective. Intrinsic means by it's very nature it is this way and can never be another. Intrinsic is an internal quality. Objective means that there is some external standard that can be applied to measure it against. If there is no objective or external standard to compare against, then the morals cannot be measured objectively and can only be thought of subjectively.

Whether something is objectively wrong or subjectively wrong does not change the strength of the wrongness, i

I don't necessarily disagree with you. In fact I think I agree, but I think you should realize that for better or worse, the word 'objective' (as well as 'relative' for that matter) tends to have multiple definitions according to who uses it. Those are probably split up even further into various 'flavours'. Unfortunately, varying definitions in any debate have a tendency to confuse conversation and create argument even when two or more people were actually in agreement, unbeknown to either.

In the Judea-Christian tradition, they have "Thou shalt not kill" But as a moral statement, that is pretty subjective, at least in practice. Is it always wrong to kill? What about self-defense? What about in war? What about to protect not life, but property? Obviously, killing and the prohibition against it cannot be objectively held as wrong as sometimes it is permissable.

No, they don't have that. The Hebrew is quite clear, and it means murder, not kill.

In the Judea-Christian tradition, they have "Thou shalt not kill" But as a moral statement, that is pretty subjective, at least in practice. Is it always wrong to kill? What about self-defense? What about in war? What about to protect not life, but property? Obviously, killing and the prohibition against it cannot be objectively held as wrong as sometimes it is permissable.

No, they don't have that. The Hebrew is quite clear, and it means murder, not kill.

No, it does not mean that it means unlawful (as under God's law) killing. Murder would be an example of that, but it goes beyond murder (you can't rely on wikipedia for everything). But even so, the Judea-Christian has been Thou shalt not kill, except in these lawful situations, so killing in and of itself is not wrong, it depends on the reason behind the killing, which makes it subjective. So, either way, it is still subjective.

You say 'You can't be called a moral guy just because...', so you believe that whether or not you rare a 'moral guy' has nothing to do with what you do.

You claim that scientific literacy along with general education gives the potential to choose to be moral, but then effectively say that if that your education depends upon the beliefs and ideas of cultures 2-3 millennia ago then that does't count. This despite the origins of western philosophy and mathematics coming from works of that period.

(such as history, sociology etc.) gives the potential to people to truly CHOOSE to be moral* or not. You can't be called a moral guy just because you obey 3 thousand year old myths because you are afraid of the bearded man in the sky. People who "are" good because of their religion are in fact immoral people who just pretend to be good under fear.

People who are good because of their religion are no more moral or immoral than people who are good based on whatever they base their moral code on. All morality does is set a code for right and wrong behavior and like it or not, if you live in western culture, your morality is based on the same religious myths you deride (although if you are referring to Judea-Christianity, it goes a lot further back than 3 thousand years).

There are three basic moral codes. There is the personal moral code, what the indiv

Yeah, I suspect anyone that works at a university and observes faculty behavior knows this "study" is fatally flawed.

Some faculty are ethical, others are not - as is the case with people in general. But the assumption of privilege seems to lead to group behaviors that most other people would probably see as, at best, ethically challenged.

"...The potential implications of the unexpected results were quickly apparent to Henrich. He knew that a vast amount of scholarly literature in the social sciences—particularly in economics and psychology—relied on the ultimatum game and similar experiments. At the heart of most of that research was the implicit assumption that the results revealed evolved psychological traits common to all humans, never mind that the test subjects were nearly always from the industrialized West. Henrich realized that if the Machiguenga results stood up, and if similar differences could be measured across other populations, this assumption of universality would have to be challenged.

Henrich had thought he would be adding a small branch to an established tree of knowledge. It turned out he was sawing at the very trunk. He began to wonder: What other certainties about “human nature” in social science research would need to be reconsidered when tested across diverse populations?..."

I think it is more correct, interesting, and productive to ask is rape a bad thing in animals.In animals you still have (for the most part), females choosing who to breed with based on certain factors (the size of plumage for example). Rape in this context is the choice being made for her, based on other factors (speed and strength for example). She only wants to produce the best offspring she can, and sometimes that can mean rape is the best thing that can happen (and she does not necessarily dislike that

Your argument starts with an assumption many people would disagree with.

Your second paragraph ends with an incorrect statement. In many, perhaps most species, the female determines which male she will mate with, and when. Your statements suggest you're not as scientifically literate as you think you are.